Fifteen years ago, we had a photojournalist
from Australia come to our farm. She
grew up on a large sheep station with thousands of wool-type sheep in the
Outback. She told us many stories of raising
sheep in Australia, but one story had a long time impact on me. She told us about a prolonged drought they
experienced, how it impacted the feed and water supply for their sheep, and how
devastating it was for her father who had to shoot and kill many of his sheep
as instructed by the government.

When we think about animal welfare, we may
not consider how the health and welfare of our livestock may affect the mental
health of the farmer or rancher, or conversely what impact human well-being may
have on the welfare of our livestock. A
lack of information on this topic is part of it, but also privacy, the
expectation to move ahead and shoulder the burden, and the stigma of showing
weakness especially around mental health issues, have kept farmer stress hidden
from view. In fact human stress on the
farm has significant effects on families, communities, future generations and
on animal welfare. It was in the 1980s
while living in the US that I was exposed to severe farmer stress, as many
farmers endured droughts, floods and staggering interest rates with resultant
economic hardships. Several
international alarms of suicide in farmers and ranchers brought the issue of
farmer stress into the spotlight. In
many countries, farming has been identified as high risk for stress, with a
higher suicide rate than most other occupations.

In our modern world focused on providing
good animal welfare, how is this to occur if we are not taking care of the
well-being of livestock producers? The
well-being and mental health of farmers and ranchers has been linked to animal
welfare with the term “One Welfare”. Many
public health agencies and animal health and welfare groups have embraced the
concept of “One Welfare” as an adjunct to “One Health”.

The first International One Welfare Conference
was held September 26-28 in Winnipeg, Manitoba to bring together the many
groups interested in this topic. The
conference was organized by the government of Manitoba, funded by Growing
Forward 2, with partnering sponsor the National Farm Animal Health and Welfare
Council. Other sponsors included the
Public Health Agency of Canada, Manitoba Pork, the CFIA, Canadian Red Cross and
various agricultural commodity and health organizations. There were speakers from Ireland, Scotland, Australia,
US and Canada providing research results and insights into this complex issue. Topics included animal hoarding, animal abuse
and neglect, psychosocial health and agriculture, education campaigns, industry
initiatives, compassion fatigue by first responders and veterinarians, and how
do we work in a collaborative way for the best possible outcomes for people and
the animals in their care.

I attended the conference, and happened to
sit next to Michael Rosmann, a farmer, clinical psychologist, professor and
writer from Iowa. His life’s work has
been dedicated to promote services that protect the welfare of farmers and
ranchers, particularly regarding their behavioural health. He attributed his success in this field more
to his farming background than anything else.
It is important to farmers that counsellors have a knowledge of
agriculture and its challenges. This
observation was repeated in the conference, and in research around the world. According
to the Canadian Agricultural Safety Association National Stress Survey in 2005,
most mental health practitioners lack farm knowledge, while the triggers of
farm stress are different from general public stress. Farmers and ranchers in rural communities are
hesitant to seek help because of the stigma attached and the tendency of people
to know everyone’s business in small communities.

Successful mental health programs are
grassroots efforts that start with raising the awareness of family members,
friends and farm organizations so that they can identify and support farmers
and ranchers under stress early on, and build a cohesive network that has links
to multiple partners and agencies who can take the support to the next level if
needed.

Stress to farm life is not new. Sheep producers are impacted by economic and
market fluctuations, prices and input costs, flock depopulations from disease
outbreaks such as scrapie, emerging diseases such as bluetongue, the collateral
damage of diseases such as BSE, resistance to medications, lack of farm labour,
isolation, government regulations, lack of cohesion and support within the
sheep industry, lack of veterinarians in isolated areas, climate extremes with
impacts such as droughts, wildfires, floods,
and crop losses, an ageing farm population, consumer misconceptions and
expectations, etc.

A recent study by Dr. Andria Jones-Bitton
of the Ontario Veterinary College of the University of Guelph reinforces the
findings of Canadian studies in 1993 and 2005, indicating a high percentage of
farmers feel stress, anxiety and depression.
Results from the study are currently being analyzed further, with the
expectation of establishing a provincial stress support program for
Ontario. Canada has no national stress
phone line for farmers, but some provinces have farmer stress lines (i.e.
Saskatchewan Farm Stress Line) and community stress or suicide lines. Canada could take a page from other countries
who are ahead of us in this area.
Examples are New York Farm Net, Scotland’s “How are Ewe?” program
initiated by a young farmer group, Australia’s “R U OK Day”. In the competitive business of farming, it is
important to show compassion and work together as a supportive industry and be
less self-absorbed. Already there have
been positive effects to these campaigns.
In recent years a critical drop in milk prices in Australia resulted in
herd dispersals and farm foreclosures, but armed with an education program and
some practical tools, farmers provided emotional support to each other and
reached out, aware of the impact of the economic and psychosocial stress on
their neighbours.

It is disturbing that many efforts in
Canada to study and deal with stress in agriculture are well-meaning and show
promise, but fizzle out due to the short term nature of government
funding. PrioNet Canada is one example,
where long term work was needed but the network was disbanded after a few years
of good progress. Part of its work was
following community impacts of BSE, not just financial impacts but on the
ground long term chronic stress. Although
it was thought to be primarily a cattle problem, BSE heavily impacted the sheep
industry. I remember taking sheep to
auction shortly after BSE in Canada was announced, and receiving $10 per
ewe. Randy Eros, Canadian Sheep
Federation chair in 2004, said the sheep industry was hit harder than
beef. About 140,000 lambs destined for
US markets had to be sold domestically when the US border closed to all
ruminants from Canada. Prices plummeted.
The CSF requested that a scrapie eradication plan be put in place with the
assistance of the government. It is
fortunate that today we do have a scrapie eradication plan. We need to be vigilant regarding emerging
issues than can not only impact the viability and profitability of the sheep
industry, but also the health and welfare of our sheep farmers and ranchers and
their stock.

The Guelph Study shows that many Canadian farmers
feel stress, indicating a vulnerability of farmers to the next crisis. Although other countries have been building
resources to improve resiliency in the farm community, Canada lacks committed
resources to help farmers and ranchers, resulting in delays in getting help. The One Welfare conference was a good first
step to help Canada move forward into a One Welfare Initiative which can increase
the awareness of stress in the farm community and its impacts on farm families,
farm profitability and human and animal welfare and find ways to improve
all-around wellness.